JUDGMENT
Prakash Krishna, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 1992. The controversy relates to the assessment year 1981-82 (Central). The applicant is a dealer and manufacturer of watches. The department for the assessment year 1981-82 has rejected the certain claims of the dealer with respect to the stock transfer.
2. The applicant before the assessing authority claimed that it is manufacturing watches for the last 4-5 years. All the sales are effected through the Head Office situate at Delhi. The watches are manufactured within the State of U.P. The stock of manufactured watches was transferred by way of stock transfer to the Head Office. The assessing authority vide its order dated September 29,1983 has treated the turnover of Rs. 12,14,650 as Central Sales. It rejected the claim of the applicant that it was a stock transfer to its Delhi Head Office. The assessment order was confirmed by the appellate authority by the order dated February 23,1990. The Tribunal has dismissed the second appeal by the order under revision.
3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Counsel Shri Ashok Kumar for the dealer submitted that its case of stock transfer for the earlier assessment year 1980-81 has been accepted by this court in Sales Tax Revision No. 1144 of 1992 decided on October 17, 2003. Elaborating the argument he submitted that the aforesaid judgment also covers the controversy involved in the present case. In contra the learned Standing Counsel submitted that each transaction of stock transfer should be examined on its fact. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in the present case rejecting the claim of stock transfer is a finding of fact.
4. In Sales Tax Revision No. 1144 of 1992 this court has held that there was nothing on record to show that movement of watches from the factory to Delhi Head Office was in pursuance of any specific order of M/s. Parikh Watch Company, Bombay, for its supply. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment of this court is quoted below:
There is nothing on record to show that the movement of the watches from factory to Delhi Head Office was in pursuance of any specific order of M/s. Parikh Watch Company, Bombay, for its supply. Unless there is material that with regard to alleged watches there was any prior contract and the movement from factory was in pursuance of that contract, the dispatch of goods from factory to Delhi Head Office cannot be treated as inter-State sales. The goods were sent in a regular course of business from factory to Delhi Head Office and thereafter, it was sold from Delhi Head Office to the various parties including M/s. Parikh Watch Company, Bombay. It was open to the Delhi Head Office on the receipt of the goods to sell to M/s. Parikh Watch Company, Bombay, or to any other party or the to deal with the goods as per their own choice. Merely because, there was no stock of Zerolax brand watches at Delhi Head Office on September 3, 1980 and merely because goods dispatched from factory to Delhi Head Office on August 28,1980 was supplied during the period from August 29, 1980 to September 3, 1980 to M/s. Parikh Watch Company, Bombay, and thereafter, further 1,500 watches were supplied to M/s. Parikh watch Company, Bombay, it cannot be said that the movement of such watches from factory to Delhi Head Office was in pursuance of any prior contract of M/s. Parikh Watch Company, Bombay.
5. The business premises of the dealer was surveyed by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) on November 23,1981. In the survey certain documents were seized. The survey has been considered in detail by the assessing authority. It has concluded on the basis of the seized dairy and a file vide Sanket Nos. 1 and 2 and the correspondences in between the dealer with M/s. Shifco Ltd., Bombay, and has come to the conclusion that Shifco Brand watches were manufactured by the dealer in pursuance of the earlier order by M/s. Shifco Ltd., and the transfer of watches to Head Office was in pursuance of the purchase orders. This finding of fact has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the applicant during the course of argument has simply placed reliance upon the judgment of this court for the earlier assessment year. He did not challenge the findings of the Tribunal that the watches were transferred by the dealer to Delhi Head Office in pursuance of the prior purchase orders from M/s. Shifco Ltd. The said finding is a finding of fact and is based on the material found at the time of survey dated November 23, 1981. Therefore the dealer-applicant cannot claim parity with the earlier assessment year 1980-81. In the relevant assessment year the department has found certain material and has proved central sales with the help of the material collected by it in the survey dated November 23, 1981.
6. The appellate authority for the earlier assessment year 1980-81 had accepted the case of the dealer with regard to the stock transfer and the said order was set aside by the Tribunal. However, for the assessment year 1981-82 even the first appellate authority held that it was not a case of stock transfer on the basis of the material found in the aforesaid survey. In the result there is no force in the revision. The revision is dismissed.
